Religion, relevant and rational?

[Stargazer]

Well, here I am. The "relevant" element tends to be a little more individualistic. I (personally) am a determinist, and I have a difficulty in resolving the conflict related to free will (i.e., that free will exists) without a theistic construct. As I mentioned in the previous thread (determinism and the scientific method), some believe that the absence of free will precludes an assumption of validity of the scientific method. I believe in the scientific method, and hence I believe a creator is required to grant us enough independence from creation to identify the natural laws expressed within it. I think (although I cannot substantiate it very well) that many of the great historical thinkers (Einstein, Newton, Mendel, Copernicus) held a similar position.

So how is the belief in a god relevant to our knowledge about the universe? Because you need a god to "explain" it all? It's not an explanation, it's an unsupported claim that adds more questions.

 

It doesn't matter how many believed in supernatural fictional entities... which Einstein btw didn't.

[Queso]

It doesn't matter how many believed in supernatural fictional entities... which Einstein btw didn't.

woohoo that's kind of what i said minus the einstein part! ;) ;)

[Biochemist]

...cant an opinion be rational in someone elses eyes, and irrational in another?

It is far easier to debate validity than truth. We do this by listing a set of assumptions, and building a case on the assumptions. This is the core of the scientific method. By this method, many arguments can be labeled "invalid" and could be construed as irrational because the argument is not consistent with the assumptions.

 

It is CERTAINLY possible to have valid arguments that do not agree because they have a) different underlying assumptions, or ;) they are equally valid arguments that are both consistent with underlying postulation, but not consistent with each other.

 

In those examples, differing opinion is both valid and rational.

[Stargazer]

The link is an example of one argument (among many) that God exists. No one has to agree with it. But I think it is internally consistent. There are others as well.

 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

This is true for things that are made up of what is already in existence!

 

2. The universe began to exist.

 

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an

actual infinite.

 

2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.

2.12 An infinite temporal regress of

events is an actual infinite.

2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal

regress of events cannot exist.

We know with certainty that this universe is not of infinite age, true.

 

2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of

the formation of an actual infinite by

successive addition.

 

2.21 A collection formed by successive

addition cannot be actually infinite.

2.22 The temporal series of past events

is a collection formed by successive

addition.

2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of

past events cannot be actually

infinite.

 

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its

existence.

I don't see how this follows.

 

And how does it make religions, which are made up out of thin air without any support at all whatever, rational? How is it rational to believe in something that we don't even know is necessary?

[Stargazer]

woohoo that's kind of what i said minus the einstein part! ;) ;)

Yep. An unfounded belief in the supernatural (what is that anyway? How is something not natural?) is not relevant just because you have that belief. I can believe in, say the classical example, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, because I think it's absolutely necessary for my existence.

[Biochemist]

So how is the belief in a god relevant to our knowledge about the universe?

I think my post is clear. You are welcome to disagree. Many do.

It doesn't matter how many believed in supernatural fictional entities... which Einstein btw didn't.

I am not suggesting that we accept opinion by majority vote. I am only suggesting that other intelligent people have held this position before.

 

And Einstein has many quotes that suggest he was a theist. He was certainly not a Christian, as he did not believe in a personal god. But he does appear to be a theist, and made many statements that related explicability of the universe to the plan or design of the creator.

 

Again, you are not obligated to agree with the position. It is just a reasonable one, and you are welcome to ignore it.

[Stargazer]

I think my post is clear. You are welcome to disagree. Many do.I am not suggesting that we accept opinion by majority vote. I am only suggesting that other intelligent people have held this position before.

Ok.

 

And Einstein has many quotes that suggest he was a theist. He was certainly not a Christian, as he did not believe in a personal god. But he does appear to be a theist, and made many statements that related explicability of the universe to the plan or design of the creator.

Maybe he changed his mind before he said he was an atheist?

 

Again, you are not obligated to agree with the position. It is just a reasonable one, and you are welcome to ignore it.

Thanks. I do prefer a position that is not completely detached from reality. I hope this is ok.

 

I believe in the scientific method, and hence I believe a creator is required to grant us enough independence from creation to identify the natural laws expressed within it.

How is this clear? How does it follow that a creator is required because of the scientific method?

[Biochemist]

I don't see how this follows.

I suspect we are beating a dead horse here. Clearly, if the universe exists, it either a) always did, or ;) started at some point. If it started at some point, it is fair to postulate causality. Some postulate a Creator. There are other valid postulates.

And how does it make religions, which are made up out of thin air without any support at all whatever, rational? How is it rational to believe in something that we don't even know is necessary?

I don't think anyone suggested that all religious thought or all religious behavior is rational, any more than anyone contends that all scientific investigation is rational. My suggestion was a) that some religious thought is rational, and ;) that it is applicable to discussion of science.

[Stargazer]

I suspect we are beating a dead horse here.

It is obvious that I am, yes. What can I say... I always get involved in religious discussions. I never learn.

 

Clearly, if the universe exists, it either a) always did, or b) started at some point. If it started at some point, it is fair to postulate causality. Some postulate a Creator. There are other valid postulates.

You can present causality as one of many possibilities. That doesn't make it rational to believe in it, because you can't possibly know any of this creators properties! You have no idea what you believe in, unless you can define this creator... and of course, realise that the creator needs a creator too. Maybe there are turtles all the way? :-)

 

I don't think anyone suggested that all religious thought or all religious behavior is rational, any more than anyone contends that all scientific investigation is rational. My suggestion was a) that some religious thought is rational, and b) that it is applicable to discussion of science.

Religion is not science. Its methods, whatever they are, have no place in science. Religion is not rational. It is not based on observations and experiments, not on empirical evidence, there is no consistent skepticism, and absolutely never the Ockham's razor. Religion is not science. If you draw the conclusion that there is a creator, it must be based on something, and if you could draw a conclusion you most likely used the scientific methods. Then we're back into science again, and we have left religion.

[Fishteacher73]

Although I disagree w/ Biochemist on a number of issues outside of this argument (I am a staunch atheist and Bio is Christian) but as I stated earlier, and many of you that want to discredit any theistic model have ignored my argument.

 

..In an increasing theoretical realm of science I think it is unwise to preclude certain possibilities unequivically. Theoretical physics claims dark mass and energy...invisible undetectible entities...that requires faith to accept, even if you do not want to admit it. I personally see no difference in accepting these ideas as any different than accepting a possible deist idea of a creator being (but not an interested manipulating being).

 

I personally do not think this is the case, but it would be poor judgement to totally preclude the possibilty.

 

It was once thought absurd that the continents moved, now we know that to be fact. How many notions have "rational" people held that were absurd (Einstein for one discounted plate tectonics)?

 

Possibly down the line evidence will arise that puts the final nail in the coffin for theistic views, but the day has yet to come.

[Biochemist]

Maybe he changed his mind before he said he was an atheist?

I never saw that one. I did see the one (several actually) where he confirmed he was not Christian.

How is this clear? How does it follow that a creator is required because of the scientific method?

Clearly, I have not made the argument well enough for you. I would suggest Francis Schaeffer's He is There, and He is not Silent for a better exposition.

[Biochemist]

I never learn.

I suspect that is unlikely.

Religion is not science.

Hey- we found something about which we agree.

 

Another proof for the existence of miracles. ;)

 

Enjoyment of high fat food isn't science either, but I am sort of glad that we have it.

[Fishteacher73]

Enjoyment of high fat food isn't science either, but I am sort of glad that we have it.

 

Just for argument...It could be argued our atraction to high fat/sugar foods is an evolutionary trait. In the natural world (outside human society) both of these items are quite rare, and quite the good source of energy to the one that finds them. Having a drive for them would be quite the advantage once semi-rational thought began to develop in hunter/gatherers. ;)

[Stargazer]

I suspect that is unlikely.

Yes maybe one day I will realise how futile it is to debate with some people.

 

Hey- we found something about which we agree.

 

Another proof for the existence of miracles. ;)

 

Enjoyment of high fat food isn't science either, but I am sort of glad that we have it.

And what I mean is that religion is not rational. It has nothing to do with reason or any of that.

 

If there are scientific reasons to believe in intelligent creators, I would like to see it.

 

If all we have is wishful thinking, and "it must be so," or the belief that lack of real answers somehow justify made-up answers, then why bother? Who would ever say that it would be rational?

[Stargazer]

I still don't feel that I have gotten any answers as to why unsupported and unnecessary beliefs are rational. I've been told that I have been given answers, but I suppose those posts were deleted or something. Oh well. Another debate about theism vs. rational science. Some prefer one, other prefer the other...

[Biochemist]

Just for argument...It could be argued our atraction to high fat/sugar foods is an evolutionary trait. In the natural world (outside human society) both of these items are quite rare, and quite the good source of energy to the one that finds them. Having a drive for them would be quite the advantage once semi-rational thought began to develop in hunter/gatherers. ;)

I like this line of thinking. Oddly, it would even select for those folks that could survive the diet (e.g., over time the diabetics and the athersclerotic would be selected against).

 

Ah- the future world without insulin and Lipitor.

[Fishteacher73]

I just put lots of salt on greasy foods. Increase the BP to push out those clogs in the veins....